Williams v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Bd.
Decision Date | 07 November 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 149,149 |
Citation | 307 Md. 606,516 A.2d 573 |
Parties | Maser WILLIAMS v. CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD. Sept. Term 1985. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Mark E. Herman, Baltimore, for appellant.
C.J. Messerschmidt, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Stephen H. Sachs, Atty. Gen., Ralph S. Tyler, Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief), Baltimore, for appellee.
Before MURPHY, C.J., and SMITH, * ELDRIDGE, COLE, RODOWSKY, COUCH and McAULIFFE, JJ.
Maryland Code (1981 Repl.Vol.), Article 26A, entitled "Criminal Injuries Compensation Act," provides for monetary awards in certain circumstances to innocent victims of crime. This case involves a claim for benefits under the Act, sought by an individual who was criminally assaulted and as a result was blinded in one eye. The question presented is whether, under the Act's provisions, the victim is entitled to a monetary award for permanent partial disability for loss of an eye, even though he returned to work without diminution in earnings.
(1)
The "Declaration of policy and legislative intent" underlying the 1968 passage of the Act, as set forth in § 1, states:
Section 3 of the Act creates the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board which is empowered by § 4, among other things, to hear and determine all claims for awards. Section 7 provides:
Section 12(f)(1) and (2) provide:
(2)
Maser Williams was criminally assaulted on January 22, 1982 and thereafter filed his claim for benefits under the Act. Following a hearing, the Board, on June 30, 1984, awarded Williams $2,139.23 for unreimbursed medical expenses and $398.97 for 2 weeks and 3 days' temporary total disability, representing lost time from work. The Board declined to make an award for permanent partial disability for the loss of Williams' eye, concluding that because he "returned to work with no diminution in earnings, ... [he] does not have a serious financial hardship as is required by Section 12(f) of the Statute for an award for his alleged permanent partial disability."
On appeal to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Williams maintained that § 12(b) required a monetary award for permanent partial disability in accordance with the schedule of benefits set forth in § 36(3) of Article 101--for the loss of an eye, 250 weeks of compensation based on Williams' average weekly wage computed under the payment formula contained in § 36(3)(c). While conceding that § 12(f)(1) requires a showing of serious financial hardship as a prerequisite to an award, Williams argued that he made such a showing, as indicated by his award for medical expenses and lost earnings. Having once been made, Williams maintained that serious financial hardship need not again be separately demonstrated as to his permanent impairment and claim for permanent partial disability.
The circuit court affirmed the Board's order and on further appeal the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment of the circuit court. Williams v. Criminal Injuries Comp. Bd., 65 Md.App. 486, 501 A.2d 105 (1985). In concluding that Williams was not entitled to an award for permanent partial disability in the absence of present economic loss, the intermediate appellate court read § 1 of the Act, setting forth the legislative declaration of policy and intent, in conjunction with § 12(f)(1), deeming it apparent therefrom "that the legislature's intent was not to make the victim whole, but to ameliorate serious financial losses sustained as a result of the victim's injuries." 65 Md.App. at 491, 501 A.2d 105. Writing for the court, Chief Judge Gilbert held that § 12(f)(1) mandates a denial of an award where the victim does not suffer serious financial hardship as a result of the criminal activity. Nothing in the Act, the court said, "was intended as a panacea for damages or injuries arising from crime," but rather the Act's purpose was "to provide recompense to crime victims who otherwise will suffer serious financial hardship." Id. at 492, 501 A.2d 105. Upon Williams' petition, we granted certiorari to consider the important issue raised in the case.
(3)
We first reviewed the history of the Act and its various provisions in Criminal Inj. Comp. Bd. v. Gould, 273 Md. 486, 331 A.2d 55 (1975). At that time, we observed that Maryland was but the fifth state "to establish a program permitting the unreimbursed victims of crime to be compensated by funds appropriated by the state for their personal injuries and loss of earnings, if the victim would otherwise suffer serious financial hardship." 3 273 Md. at 495-96, 331 A.2d 55. Prerequisite to any award, we said, was "the incurring of 'serious financial hardship,' " the payment of benefits under the Act being "predicated upon the schedule of benefits and degree of disability reflected in the Workmen's Compensation Act." Id. at 496, 331 A.2d 55. In commenting upon the Act's passage, we said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sugarloaf Citizens Ass'n v. Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority
...See, e.g., Inlet Associates v. Assateague House, 313 Md. 413, 432-433, 545 A.2d 1296, 1306 (1988); Williams v. Criminal Injuries Comp. Bd., 307 Md. 606, 616, 516 A.2d 573, 578 (1986); Supervisor v. Chase Associates, 306 Md. 568, 579, 510 A.2d 568, 573 (1986); Macke Co. v. Comptroller, 302 M......
-
Johnson v. CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD
...from other sources exceed the amount of a potential award, no award is payable by the Board. [See Williams v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, 307 Md. 606, 516 A.2d 573 (1986)].... The Board concludes after reviewing the file, the evidence submitted, and after due deliberation that the......
-
McComas v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Bd.
...has determined that all of the statutory requirements are met may an award of compensation be granted. Williams v. Criminal Inj. Comp. Bd., 307 Md. 606, 614, 516 A.2d 573 (1986) ("[P]ecuniary loss criteria clearly limit the extent to which the Board may make an award where financial need is......
-
Dixon v. Criminal Injuries Comp. Bd.
...473-74. This case does not pose the same interpretive problems that the Washington court faced in Standing. See Williams v. Criminal Injuries Comp. Bd., 307 Md. 606, 617 (1986) (observing that "[t]he criminal victim compensation statutes in other jurisdictions . . . have widely varying cove......